Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:44:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801091744.MAA14772@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: knowledge and belief X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 201e0d8992271099f192e72491cd5657 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1984 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jan 12 15:43:29 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >>Why would we want to change the meaning of {djuno} at this stage? > >It is not a change in the meaning of djuno, but a clarification of the >English by adding an extra gloss. It is a change if the extra gloss contradicts the existing one, as well as usage. >The current argument, I am reading as >saying that to some English speakers, you can only use djuno when the >speaker finds the x2 to be true, which in Lojbanic terms probably means >finding the x4 of djuno to be truth-providing epistemology. What would be an example of a non-truth-providing epistemology? > By contrast, >as Steven just pointed out, the "footnotes" beyond column 160 in effect >say that epistemology places are generally filled with references to brivla >with du'u places of which krici is one. What is meant there by "generally"? Certainly not customarily, since customarily the place has been left unfilled. Indeed, it would be interesting to see if it has ever been filled in actual usage. >This is in keeping with my statement >of a few days ago that "krici" is suitable abstract form is an acceptable >x4 epistemology for djuno (so I didn't just make that one up on the fly - >it was already intended and stated in the list). How does that follow? "Words usable for epistemology typically have a du'u place" in no way implies "every word with a du'u place is usable for epistemology", nor in particular "krici is suitable for epistemology". But I'm not really against using it as an epistemology as long as it is also used as an epistemology in the x2 of {jetnu}. >The reason why I say that "be convinced of fact" fits djuno, is that to >be convinced of something, one must consider it true, AND have that >consideration be justified Yes, but to claim that someone else is convinced of something one need not consider it true, while to claim that someone else knows something one must. That's the difference that I have been pointing out, not the use in the first person. co'o mi'e xorxes